DETAILED ACTION
This non-final office action is in response to claims 1-7 filed on 05/06/2025 for examination. Claims 1-7 are being examined and are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/06/2025 and 12/04/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites:
“An information processing method that is executed by a computer, the information processing method comprising: a) acquiring to-be-processed text that includes an object concept to be concealed; b) acquiring a reader attribute that indicates an attribute of a reader of the to-be- processed text; and c) abstracting, according to the reader attribute, the object concept included in the to-be-processed text by using ontology information that defines a hierarchical relationship of a plurality of concepts.”
The limitations of an information processing method that is executed by a computer, the information processing method comprising: a) acquiring to-be-processed text that includes an object concept to be concealed; b) acquiring a reader attribute that indicates an attribute of a reader of the to-be- processed text; and c) abstracting, according to the reader attribute, the object concept included in the to-be-processed text by using ontology information that defines a hierarchical relationship of a plurality of concepts, cover performing processes that could be practically performed in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “executed by a computer”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind with aid of pen and paper. For example, human beings can acquire information, store information, and abstract information. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of processes in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements of “executed by a computer”. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computers performing generic computer functions of acquiring and processing information) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of “executed by a computer” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The limitations recited are in essence instructions to implement the abstract idea using functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional in the industry (e.g., using a computer to receive information, using a computer to process information). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
For reference: according to MPEP 2106.05(d), elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in particular fields include, e.g. “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather data”, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc, 793 F.3d at 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Further, according to the USPTO Berkheimer memo of 04/19/2018, section III.A.1, “A specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a)”.
Accordingly, (1) the claim recites an abstract idea, (2) the judicial exception is not implemented into a practical application, and (3) the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 1 not patent eligible.
Independent claim 7 is rejected under like rationale. While claim 7 further recites “a computer program that is executable by a computer” – the recitation is generic computer components performing generic computer functions, and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application/significantly more. Dependent claims 2-6 merely recite further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claim 1 without meaningful limitations beyond generally clarifying the abstract ideas used in claim 1. These limitations are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes to be performed. That is, for at least the reasons discussed herein with regards to claim 1, dependent claims 2-6 also fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or amount to sufficiently more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Imran-Daud et al. (NPL: “Privacy-driven Access Control in Social Networks by Means of Automatic Semantic Annotation”; July 4, 2016; Hereinafter “Imran-Daud”).
Regarding claim 1, Imran-Daud teaches an information processing method that is executed by a computer (§ 4 and 3.2 – system implemented via computers executing stored instructions), the information processing method comprising:
a) acquiring to-be-processed text that includes an object concept to be concealed (§ 3 and 3.2-3.2.2 – a monitor receives a message <i.e., acquires to-be-processed text>. The message contains semantically annotated terms, and terms providing more specific information than is authorized for some readers. The more specific information may need to be redacted/abstracted/replaced <i.e., comprises object concepts to be concealed>);
b) acquiring a reader attribute that indicates an attribute of a reader of the to-be- processed text (§ 3 and 3.2 – a message <i.e., to-be-processed text> is received from a publisher to be shared with readers. A reader may attempt to read the message. The attempt includes a reader’s “reader classification” <i.e., attribute> with regards to the publisher. E.g., the reader may be a “close friend”, “family”, etc. Based on the reader’s reader classification <i.e., attribute>, the monitor annotates/classifies the recipient according to the reader’s classification); and
c) abstracting, according to the reader attribute, the object concept included in the to-be-processed text by using ontology information that defines a hierarchical relationship of a plurality of concepts (§ 3.2.2 and 3.1 – the system determines the disclosure level permitted for the reader’s reader classification <i.e., reader attribute>. The system retrieves a taxonomic branch from DBpedia <i.e., ontology information defining hierarchical concept relationships> based on the access level. The system identifies message concepts <i.e., object concept> using DBpedia located below the authorized access level of the reader, and then replaces the message concepts with abstracted access-level concepts <i.e., abstracts the object concept>. E.g., “hepatitis” may be abstracted to “disease”, etc.).
Regarding claim 2, Imran-Daud teaches the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the ontology information defines a conceptual hierarchy level for each concept (§ 3.1 and 3.2.2 – Dbpedia <i.e., the ontology information system> concepts are taxonomically classified in an ontology and arranged as nodes along taxonomic branches in a hierarchy <i.e., each concept has a conceptual hierarchy level>), the reader attribute is information indicating a specific conceptual hierarchy level (§ 3.2.1 and 3 – each reader contact category is assigned an access level expressed by a concept term defining the maximum level of information disclosure. The readers contact type <e.g., “close friend”, “family”, etc.> identifies the corresponding access level <i.e., indicates a reader-specific conceptual hierarchy level>), and the operation c) includes abstracting the object concept included in the to-be- processed text when the specific conceptual hierarchy level indicated by the reader attribute is higher than a conceptual hierarchy level of the object concept (§ 3.2.2 and 3.2 – the system retrieves the taxonomic branch having the reader’s access level as its top level node, and determines whether a message concept is above or below that access level. If the concept is below the access level, the system replaces the message concept with an appropriate access level for the viewer. E.g., “hepatitis” may be abstracted to “disease”, etc.).
Regarding claim 3, Imran-Daud teaches the information processing method according to claim 2, wherein the operation c) includes replacing the object concept included in the to-be- processed text with a concept that is at the specific conceptual hierarchy level indicated by the reader attribute when the conceptual hierarchy level of the object concept is lower than the specific conceptual hierarchy level (§ 3.2.2 and 3.1 – the system determines the disclosure level permitted for the reader’s reader classification <i.e., reader attribute>. The system retrieves a taxonomic branch from DBpedia <i.e., ontology information defining hierarchical concept relationships> based on the access level. The system identifies message concepts <i.e., object concept> using DBpedia located below the authorized access level of the reader, and then replaces the message concepts with abstracted access-level concepts <i.e., abstracts the object concept>. E.g., “hepatitis” may be abstracted to “disease” if that is the access level of abstraction granted to the reader, etc. <i.e., the lower-level object concept is replaced with the concept at the reader-indicated hierarchy level>).
Regarding claim 4, Imran-Daud teaches the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the ontology information defines a disclosure range for each concept (§ 3.2.1-3.2.2 – privacy rules associate each sensitive topic/reader-contact category with an access-level term defining the maximum permitted disclosure. The DBpedia’s corresponding taxonomic branch identifies which more-specific concepts exceed that permitted range <i.e., defines a disclosure range for each concept>), the reader attribute is information indicating whether the reader attribute is included in the disclosure range (§ 3.2 and 3.2.2 – the reader’s contact category <i.e., reader attribute> selects a privacy rule and corresponding access level. The information is used to indicate whether the reader is authorized to receive a concept at its original specificity <i.e., whether or not it is in the disclosure range>), and the operation c) includes abstracting the object concept included in the to-be- processed text when the reader attribute is not included in the disclosure range of the object concept (§ 3.2.2 and 3.2 – content below the reader’s permitted access level is replaced with a content/concepts that are permissible for the reader’s access level <i.e., the permitted access levels are a range, and outside the range cannot view unfiltered information>. E.g., Alice’s “close friend” classification is not authorized to receive “hepatitis” at her access level, so “hepatitis” <i.e., object concept> is replaced/abstracted with the broader concept “disease”>).
Regarding claim 5, Imran-Daud teaches the information processing method according to claim 4, wherein the operation c) includes, when the reader attribute is not included in the disclosure range of the object concept included in the to-be-processed text, replacing the object concept with a concept that is a higher-level concept than the object concept and that includes the reader attribute in the disclosure range (§ 3.2.1-3.2.2 – the reader’s contact category selects an access level defining the maximum permitted disclosure. Concepts more specific than that access level in the message <i.e., to be processed text> are replaced with the corresponding access-level concept. E.g., Alice’s “close friend” classification is not authorized to receive “hepatitis” at her access level, so “hepatitis” <i.e., object concept> is replaced/abstracted with the broader concept “disease”>).
Regarding claim 6, Imran-Daud teaches the information processing method according to claim 5, wherein the disclosure range becomes larger as the hierarchical relationship of concepts is at a higher level in the ontology information (§ 3.2.1-3.2.2 – the higher level concept “disease” may be disclosed to both “close friends” and “family” <i.e., access levels in the ontological relationships>, whereas a lower level concept such as “hepatitis” may be disclosed to only “family”. The higher-level concept is disclosable to a larger range of reader/contact categories <i.e., the disclosure range becomes larger at a higher level in the ontology information).
Regarding claim 7, Imran-Daud teaches a recording medium having recorded thereon a computer program that is executable by a computer, the computer program causing the computer to execute the information processing method (§ 4 and 3.2 – system implemented via computers executing stored instructions) according to claim 1 (see above with regards to claim 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Childress et al. (US20180268309) teaches a system for determining a user’s domain specific knowledge level, and correlating concepts in a response with levels of a hierarchical ontology, and adjusting the response with appropriate abstractions (see, e.g., Childress at [0005], [0016], [0089], and [0103]). Roy et al. (US20090112867) teaches receiving a document and the intended viewer’s identity/access privileges, identifying confidential terms or named entities, and producing view-dependent sanitized documents in which information unauthorized for that view is concealed (see, e.g., Roy at [0008-009], [0024], and [0033-034]). Davis et al. (US 20110113049) teaches a system for identifying sensitive references in unstructured text, using an ontology or taxonomy to replace those references with progressively broader concepts, and rewriting the text with the resulting generalized concepts (see, e.g., Davis at [0015-020]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA RAYMOND WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-4365. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, & Alternate Fridays.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Taghi Arani can be reached at 5712723787. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.R.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2438
/TAGHI T ARANI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2438
Prosecution Insights